Republican Consultant Gives Reporters Too Much Credit
Dec 23, 2008 Political
Barack Obama has the media in his hip-hop pocket. They have carried his water for two years and helped to quash any negative story, and there were many, that arose over that time. When the Blagojevich story broke Obama was quick to say neither he nor his staff had anything to do with the situation and the media bought that, until it was revealed that Rahm Emanuel had contact regarding the open Senate seat.
Obama and his camp went into damage control mode and decided to conduct an internal investigation. The investigation was completed last week and they, reportedly at the request of US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, held the results. They are supposed to be released this week, maybe as soon as today (I bet it will be tomorrow). How convenient the report will be released while Obama is at a plush Hawaiian retreat many miles away. The internal review will show that there were no contacts that were inappropriate (as opposed to NO contacts). The media will accept this as gospel and move on to Christmas parties and other social gatherings. Accepting the results as closing the issue is like allowing a person to conduct his own tax audit. I bet Major League Baseball wished it had been allowed to conduct its own audit into steroid abuse and have it accepted as the final word.
Republican consultant Ron Bonjean, however, believes that the report will set off a flurry of activity from reporters eager to discover the independent truth:
“The contacts are a potential Pandora’s box,” Mr. Bonjean said. “They’ll take reporters in all different directions, like having dozens of little rabbits running around the White House.” WSJ
The only activity will be reporters running around eager to prove what Obama concluded was true. They will not dig into anything that might discredit their chosen one and will do whatever it takes to validate their support. Chris Matthews said it was his job to ensure Obama was successful. His job, as well as most in the media, was to ensure Bush was unsuccessful but with The One, it is different because they all backed him. The media went to bat for Obama and carried his water through every potential scandal.
Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Tony Rezko (and many others) all had associations with Obama that bore further scrutiny but the media were asleep at the wheel. The birth certificate issue is valid but the media refuses to run with it and that includes those who report from the right. The media have failed to exercise due diligence in reporting and vetting Barack Obama and it will likely not exercise journalistic integrity until something happens that cannot be ignored. They did the same with Bill Clinton whose character was in question from the start. Michael Isikoff was prepared to break the Monica Lewinsky story but Newsweek killed it. If Drudge had not published it there would likely not have been the flurry of activity that followed.
Obama will enjoy much of the same treatment until he is involved in something that cannot be ignored so indicating that reporters will be running around like rabbits following the Obama report’s conclusions is being generous with regard to American journalists.
It is very likely that Obama’s people had contact with Blagojevich and that the Senate seat was discussed. If Obama’s report is not complete in all dealings in the matter and it is discovered that other contacts were made then he will be tainted from the start (OK, more tainted). The MSM cannot allow this to happen.
It will be a fun four years watching the media fall all over Obama though I imagine some of his shine is beginning to fade. He has already ticked off the gays and has Barney Frank talking negatively about him.
The media might still love him in the end but they might be the only ones.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Now That He’s Elected They Will Cover Scandals
Dec 14, 2008 Political
All during the campaign, from the primaries to the general election, Barack Obama was plagued with one scandal after another. The issues were legitimate and they were worthy of mention but they were dismissed by the left and its media wing as nothing. The idiots at the Daily Kos and assorted other Democratic mouthpieces, the very same groups who see scandal every time George Bush passes gas, remained silent or attributed the revelations to a right wing smear job. Of course, most of the “smear” came from Democrats during their primary.
Now that the media have ensured that Obama was elected they are now free to investigate scandals and they are, to their own amazement, finding that Obama had questionable associations. Imagine that? The governor of Illinois has been arrested in a scandal that might have long reaching arms and involve Jesse Jackson Jr as well as various members of Obama’s dream team and the media are suddenly interested in particulars (but not too many).
Rahm Emanuel is one such member and things are looking bleak for him. The so called heavy weight with the foul mouth and the mean temper has been reduced to hiding in his home and sneaking out to work because he is likely smack dab in the middle of the corruption.
When the story about Governor Blagojevich broke Barack Obama expressed his surprise and disappointment and indicated that this was the first that he had heard of the pay for play scheme. He assured us that none of his people were involved in the “sale” of his Senate seat. Looks like Obama might have been a bit premature in his assessment because it is now reported that Emanuel was recorded discussing the Senate seat.
As of now there is no indication that he was involved in any of the illegal activities. The recording of him has not been released so we don’t know what was discussed but we do know that the fact he was discussing the matter is contrary to what Obama said about the issue. Obama’s statement that he had not spoken or met with the governor has also been shown to be false because there are pictures of the two together.
Obama and his team are in the middle of a scandal and they have circled the wagons. They are not discussing much, if anything at all, with the media. The man who would bring transparency to government has closed ranks and is anything but transparent. Obama has also shown that he is not above politics as usual and that his rhetoric about reforming DC was nothing more than campaign promises he never intended to keep. How could he bring a new brand of politics when he is a Chicago politician and, as seen in the Blagojevich scandal, there is nothing new or clean bout that?
Perhaps Obama should have made Hillary Clinton his Chief of Staff. She has many years experience covering up scandals. Obama is a babe in the woods when compared to the Clintons.
Then again, it was the Clinton kind of politics that Obama promised to get rid of.
What a difference an election makes
Prior to the election Obama could murder babies in Times Square and the media would ignore it. They would rationalize his acts and the Daily Kos would attribute it to a Right Wing Conspiracy and blame it on Bush.
Well moonbats, Bush had nothing to do with this. All the scandal, all the attention, and all the dirt is on your guy. George Bush had nothing to do with it though I bet he is getting a bit of a chuckle out of seeing the anointed One get the third degree.
Bush probably finds some humor in the fact that when the Plame issue was being investigated the left was in full attack mode and convicting people before they ever had a trial. Despite his insistence that he was not aware of what had taken place and who “leaked” Plame’s so called secret identity, he was branded a liar. The left was calling for investigations day after day and Bush’s people were the object of ridicule.
Now, one of Obama’s people (at least) is right in the thick of an investigation and the left is not calling for him to be frog marched out in chains. They are not calling Obama a liar because he denied knowledge and they are defending him. Why, he is a victim here. Someone did something to make him look bad or bring discredit upon him. He is getting consideration that George Bush never got.
Did Obama know anything? Who knows? However, he came from the crooked politics of Illinois and he has used questionable tactics and had questionable associations in the past so it is not beyond reason that he is involved.
However, given Obama’s past, it is likely that he sent surrogates to do the dirty work so he could stay “clean” should the deification hit the cooling device.
How long will it be before Rahm Emanuel joins the many others located under the bus?
Regardless of what happens, this scandal will no doubt haunt and hinder Obama for some time to come.
Maybe if it gets bad enough he will show that Birth Certificate so that he does not have to take office…
Others:
ABC
Chicago Tribune
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: chicago, corruption, crime, denial, dirty politics, illinois, Obama, pay to play, rahm emanuel, scandal
Will MSM Give Hillary Same Treatment as Bush?
Jan 25, 2008 Political
Drudge is displaying a picture that has surfaced of Tony Rezko with the smiling Clintons, one on each side. This is important because Hillary Clinton mentioned Rezko in the last Democratic debate when she said to Senator Obama; “I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.” The photograph looks like one of the many that presidents and their wives have taken, photos that are often with people they do not know and have never met. Often though, these pictures are taken with people who have donated money to the president’s campaign. So the question now becomes, how did Tony Rezko get invited to whatever event this was and how did he get his picture taken with the Clintons? Another question would have to be did this “slumlord” donate money to them?
On the surface this might not seem like a big deal and many Hillary supporters will say that she has taken many photos with people that she does not know. Hillary was making that very case this morning on the Today show. In the glory days of the Clintons the media would be tucking this under the bed and if she were running against a Republican they would certainly make no big deal out of it. The media are not treating the Clintons unfairly as Bill claims, they are just giving Hillary the same scrutiny as other candidates. In other words, the playing field has been leveled and the Clintons are not used to that. Remember, it was Drudge who expose the Lewinsky affair when the media was keeping it under wraps.
As I stated though, the photo looks like one of many except the person in the middle is different so why is this important and why should Hillary be taken to task for this photo? There was a guy named Jack Abramoff who was a lobbyist. He ended up in jail and several Republicans ended up in legal trouble because of illegal dealings with Abramoff (Democrats ignored their dealings with Abramoff as did their partners in the MSM). After the Abramoff scandal broke there was word that the disgraced lobbyist had been tot he White House and that there were photos of him with President and Mrs. Bush. The Democrats and the media went nuts over this and said it proved that Bush was doing illegal things. The Chicago Tribune said that Mr. Bush had some explaining to do even as the President was saying that he took thousands of photos with people he did not know and that he did not know Abramoff (sound familiar?). Here is the Tribune take on it:
“However, now we know there are at least two visits by admitted felon Jack Abramoff that the White House must explain,’’ Fitton said. “What was Jack Abramoff doing at the White House? With whom did he meet? The public deserves to know answers to these questions.†Chicago Tribune
Since Rezko is from Chicago, let’s wait and see how long the Tribune waits to tell us that the public deserves to know about Rezko’s visit with the Clintons.
There is no doubt that Abramoff raised money for President Bush as he did for many politicians from both parties. Many of those politicians, including the President, have donated that money to charity. The point being, if Abramoff was able to get his picture with the President because of fund raising, what did Rezko do to get his picture taken with the Clintons?
This photo, which has to be an embarrassment to Hillary, is probably nothing more than a photo with someone they really do not know, as are the Abramoff/Bush photos. However, the media and the Democratic Party went absolutely nuts over the Bush photos and the words corruption and scandal were thrown around quite often. Therefore, the Clinton photo with Rezko demands the same attention and scrutiny as the Bush/Abramoff photos and that attention needs to be now, not six months after she is elected to the Presidency.
The media cannot drag its feet on this and they must start digging to see if Rezko gave the Clintons money or if there is another relationship between the parties. The media must start using words like scandal and corruption and the Clintons must allow access to all their records so a federal probe can begin.
While the investigators and the media are at it, they can look into Hillary’s ties to Abramoff as well. If she wants to be President then she should be held to the same standard that the Democrats hold President Bush to.
Of course, this could be photoshopped…
Others items of interest:
Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, The Pet Haven Blog, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, A Newt One- The Truth Surge, Pet’s Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, A Newt One, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: abramoff, Clinton, investigation, photo, rezko, scandal
Do Clintons use Charity Donations for Campaigns?
Dec 20, 2007 Political
The Clintons are under fire again for potential circumvention of campaign financing laws. This time the question is whether charitable contributions to the Clintons, which do not have to be disclosed, somehow make it into their various campaigns. Specifically, have donations for his library been routed to Hillary’s presidential campaign. There is also some question as to whether these donations have been bribes.
But an examination of the foundation demonstrates how its fund-raising has at times fostered the potential for conflict.
The New York Times has compiled the first comprehensive list of 97 donors who gave or pledged a total of $69 million for the Clinton presidential library in the final years of the Clinton administration. The examination found that while some $1 million contributors were longtime Clinton friends, others were seeking policy changes from the administration. Two pledged $1 million each while they or their companies were under investigation by the Justice Department.
Other donations came from supporters who had been ensnared in campaign finance scandals surrounding Mr. Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign.
In raising record sums for her campaign, Mrs. Clinton has tapped many of the foundation’s donors. At least two dozen have become “Hillraisers,†each bundling $100,000 or more for her presidential bid. The early library donors, combined with their families and political action committees, have contributed at least $784,000 to Mrs. Clinton’s Senate and presidential coffers. NYT
The Clintons have kept the list of donors private but Bill promises to make future donations public only if Hillary gets elected. This does not answer the questions raised by the NYT. Did the Clintons get pay offs from companies under investigation or that had some interest before the government? Just looking at the item above one would have to conclude that there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. However, in true Clinton fashion, Bill tells us not to worry.
Even so, past donors should remain private, he insisted, “unless there is some conflict of which I am aware, and there is not.â€
Let me interpret; Trust me, there is no conflict. Nothing to see here, move along. If I say it then it is so because I am a trustworthy guy. I would never lie to you.
Only in American politics can this be said with a straight face and only in the world of Clinton can it be said with a delivery that expects it to be believed. With the Senate refusing to consider the nominees for the FEC the Clintons might feel like a cat left alone in a tuna factory.
Clinton = Dirty Criminal. Hillary = Satan.
Others with similar posts:
Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Adam’s Blog, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Clinton, fundraising, lawbreaking, scandal